Australian Senate questions government on ACMA censorship and WikiLeaks

From WikiLeaks

Senate questions to the Australian Government by Senator Ludlam about the Australian censorship list run by the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA), three editions of which were revealed by WikiLeaks.

Senator Ludlam: To ask the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the
Digital Economy—
(1) With reference to the hearings of the Environment, Communications and
the Arts Committee additional estimates of 23 February 2009, in which an
officer of the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA)
stated ‘As you may recall, Senator, every six months those overview
profiles of the number of investigations that we have done and the
breakdown—whether it was RC [Refused Classification], child
pornography, X and so on—are tabled in parliament. If we look at one of
those six-month reports, there is a lot of information on what we do
regarding our investigations there’ (Committee Hansard, 23 February 2009,
ECA 108): was the officer referring to the Co-regulatory Scheme for
Internet Content Regulation reports; if so, have those reports been prepared
and tabled since the report for the period July to December 2005; if so,
where can copies of these reports, for the 3 years since 2005, be obtained.
(2) If the answer to (1) above is no:
(a) what are the six-monthly reports to which the officer referred to;
and
(b) where can copies of these reports be obtained.
(3) Does the ACMA charge a fee to filter suppliers for the ACMA’s blacklist
and/or updates to the blacklist; if so:
(a) is the fee $15 000 (as reported by a filter supplier on 26 March 2009
at http://www.crikey.com.au); if not, how much is the fee;
Page 66
66
No. 66—12 May 2009
(b) for what period of time does the fee cover (for example, annually,
half-yearly, monthly, etc); and
(c) when did the ACMA commence charging a fee.
(4) Does the ACMA charge a fee, or does it intend to do so in future, for the
supply of its blacklist to Internet Service Providers (ISPs) who provide
server-level filtering; if so, how much.
(5) What procedures or systems does the ACMA have in place to ensure that
filter suppliers promptly add and delete Uniform Resource Locators (URLs)
on notification of updates by the ACMA, for example, does the ACMA
undertake audits of filter suppliers’ copies of the ACMA’s blacklist; if so,
how often.
(6) In regard to media reports in March 2009 that the ACMA stated that a page
containing photographs by Mr Bill Henson had been incorrectly added to
the ACMA’s blacklist as a result of a ‘caching error’: (a) what is a ‘caching
error’; and (b) can the ACMA prevent a ‘caching error’ happening in
future; if so, how.
(7) When the ACMA adds to its blacklist the URL of a hacked page on an
overseas-hosted web site, that is operated/maintained by an Australian
resident or Australian-based business, does the ACMA notify the
Australian resident/business of the existence of the prohibited content so
that it may promptly delete such content and have its page promptly
removed from the blacklist; if not, why not.
(8) How does the ACMA determine whether web page content has ‘an
Australian connection’, for example, does the ACMA base this
determination on the geographical location of the business/person to whom
the IP [Internet Provider] address of the web site’s domain has been
allocated, the geographical location of the business/person identified as the
registrant the administrative or the technical contact of the domain in the
‘whois’ information.
(9) In regard to the ACMA’s blacklist:
(a) how many URLs on the blacklist are main domain addresses, for
example, http://www.example.com (not the address of a sub-page
on a web site);
(b) when the ACMA notifies filter suppliers of a domain address, are
filter suppliers required to block only that particular page (that is,
the site’s ‘home’ page), or all pages on the domain; and
(c) if filter suppliers are required to block all pages on a domain, by
what means does the ACMA determine that there is a substantial
likelihood that all pages on the domain are, if classified,
potential/prohibited content.
(10) In regard to the ACMA online content statistics for the month of December
2008, ACMAsphere No. 38, states that 237 overseas-hosted items were
actioned and 22 items were ‘R18+ Language’, while the ACMA’s Internet
statistics web page states that 253 overseas-hosted items were actioned, no
items were ‘R18+ Language’ and 22 items were ‘X 18+ Actual sexual
activity’ and given that there are also other discrepancies between the two
sets of reported statistics:
(a) which statistics are accurate; and
(b) what caused the discrepancies.
Page 67
No. 66—12 May 2009
67
(11) For each of the following periods: 20 January to 31 June 2008 and 1 July
2008 to date:
(a) how many items of Internet content did the ACMA submit to the
Classification Board for the purpose of complying with clause 116
of Schedule 7 (samples of content to be submitted for classification)
of the Broadcasting Services Act 1992; and
(b) how many of these items were content that did not have an
‘Australian connection’.
(12) In regard to ACMA Internet content assessors:
(a) why are the names, dates of appointment and short biographies of
the assessors not made publicly available (as has long been the case
in relation to members of the Classification Board and Classification
Review Board);
(b) are content assessors, like members of the classification boards,
appointed by the Governor-General; if not, who appoints them;
(c) in selecting and appointing content assessors, are there requirement
that they have the capacity to assess, identify and represent
community standards;
(d) are content assessors initially appointed for a fixed term of service;
if so, what is that period of time;
(e) is there a statutory or other limit on the maximum term of service
for a content assessor; and if so, what is that period of time;
(f) for each content assessor, what was the date of their initial
appointment;
(g) how many content assessors are:
(i) former full-time or part-time members of the Classification
Board,
(ii) former temporary/casual members of the Classification
Board,
(iii) current temporary/casual members of the Classification
Board,
(iv) former members of the Classification Review Board, and
(v) former employees, in any role, of the former Office of Film
and Literature Classification; and
(h) for each content assessor referred to in (12)(g) above, what is each
of their total period of service in the abovementioned former roles.
(13) Do ACMA content assessors undergo regular training by the Classification
Board to help ensure consistency of decisions; if so, how often does such
training take place.
(14) How many content assessors view and assess an item of Internet content
prior to an ACMA determination that it is ‘potential prohibited content’
because there is a substantial likelihood that it would be classified by the
Classification Board as:
(a) RC, ‘RC-Child Depiction’;
(b) RC, for any other reason;
(c) X18+;
(d) R18+; and
(e) MA15+.
Page 68
68
No. 66—12 May 2009
(15) In regard to the page on an anti-abortion web site that was determined by
the ACMA to be ‘RC-Violence’ in January 2009 and the criteria for RC in
the national classification code:
(a) was the content determined to be prohibited/potential prohibited
content under clause 1(a) of the criteria for RC (depictions of
violence that offend against the standards of reasonable adults) or
under clause 1(c) (promote, incite or instruct in matters of crime or
violence); and
(b) how many content assessors participated in making a decision that
there was a substantial likelihood that the content would be RC if
classified.
(16) In regard to the ACMA’s ‘Restricted Access System Declaration 2007’, the
explanatory statement to the declaration and the ACMA’s web page titled
‘new restricted access arrangements’ state that the requirements in the
declaration apply only to content that has an ‘Australian connection’ (is
hosted in Australia or provided from Australia):
(a) what procedures/systems are available to providers of
overseas-hosted content to enable them to ensure that content they
provide that is, or would be classified R18+ or (commercial)
MA15+, is not added to the ACMA’s blacklist; and
(b) if these procedures/systems comply with the ‘Restricted Access
System Declaration 2007’, how can the ACMA, and Australian
Internet users, know that an overseas content provider is complying
with the Australian National Privacy Principles under the Privacy
Act 1988, as required by the Restricted Access System Declaration
2007, in relation to use/disclosure etc of proof of age
documentation/information they acquire and are required to keep for
2 years.
*1496 Senator Ludlam: To ask the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the
Digital Economy—
(1) With reference to the hearings of the Environment, Communications and
the Arts Committee additional estimates of 23 February 2009, in which an
officer of the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA),
stated that in ‘the last financial year’ the ACMA had actioned
774 prohibited content items and that 410 of those were child sexual abuse
items (Committee Hansard, 23 February 2009, ECA 95) and given that in
March 2009 a list of Uniform Resource Locators (URLs) purporting to be
the ACMA blacklist was published and was deemed by the ACMA to be
sufficiently sensitive that the leaked blacklist was, itself, added to the
blacklist, can the Minister identify by name which of the URLs on the list
of URLs purporting to be the 18 March 2009 list are designated by the
ACMA as not being ‘child sexual abuse items’.
(2) Are URLs which are not ‘child sexual abuse items’ legal for Australian
adults to read and view.
(3) (a) Is the list itself a ‘child sexual abuse item’; and (b) is it legal for
Australian adults to read and view it.
(4) When did the Government’s policy change from using the ACMA
prohibited content list, as documented in its pre-election platform materials,
to using a new list of Refused Classification (RC) material, as documented
in the latest version of the Minister’s form letters.
Page 69
No. 66—12 May 2009
69
(5) Does the Government intend the ACMA to use its own judgement to
determine that Internet content has been refused classification as per
existing practice for offshore content or does the Government intend to use
the services of the Classification Board, as stated by the Minister on the
Special Broadcasting Service program Insight, on Tuesday, 31 March 2009.
(6) With reference to the Minister’s form letter on Internet filtering which
states that the ‘scope of the definition of prohibited content in legislation
cannot be expanded without changes to legislation being passed by
Parliament, and the Government does not intend doing this’, what lawful
authority empowers: (a) the ACMA to maintain a list of RC content,
separate from its existing list of prohibited content; and (b) the Government
to require Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to maintain mandatory filtering
systems on their networks.
(7) Is it legal for Australians to possess, read and view material which has been
refused classification by the Classification Board, but which has not been
judged to be illegal in a court.
(8) Is it illegal for Australians to view RC images of aborted foetuses.
(9) Is it illegal for Australians to read RC copies of The Peaceful Pill
Handbook, or view the film, The Peaceful Pill.
(10) Will the content which the ACMA assessed as RC on the abortiontv.com
website be blocked by ISPs on a mandatory basis for adults; if not, what
other exceptions to RC, on other websites, would be similarly permitted.
(11) Will the content in the YouTube presentations of The Peaceful Pill which
the ACMA assessed as RC be blocked by ISPs on a mandatory basis for
adults; if not, what other exceptions to RC would be similarly permitted.
(12) Will the lists of URLs purporting to be copies of the ACMA blacklist on
http://www.wikileaks.org, which the ACMA assessed as RC, be blocked by
ISPs on a mandatory basis for adults; if not, what other exceptions to RC
would be similarly permitted.
(13) Will computer games exceeding the requirements of the MA15+
classification be RC and potentially blocked by ISPs on a mandatory basis
for adults; if not, what other exceptions to RC would be similarly permitted.
(14) If the Government intends to distribute to ISPs a blacklist of RC websites
used by millions of end users across the length and breadth of Australia,
what safeguards does it intend to put in place to prevent the list from being:
(a) leaked and subsequently published; and (b) reverse engineered by one or
several of those users and subsequently published.
(15) Has the Government consulted with officials in overseas jurisdictions to
determine their likely reaction in the event that a leaked copy of an
Australian list of RC material is published on the Internet, and which
subsequently enables criminal activity outside Australia’s borders; if not:
(a) why not; and (b) does the Government intend to consult these
jurisdictions.